An ICE detainer signed by an ICE officer authorizing a hold for up to 48 hours on top of state charges was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gomez-Robles, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211348 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210784 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2017):
\n<\/p>\n
The Defendant’s arguments fail on their merits for the straightforward reason that federal law provides both the authority for DHS to issue immigration detainers and for law enforcement agencies, like the Pima County Jail, to detain those identified in those detainers. DHS issues immigration detainers pursuant to 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7. That regulation states that “[a] detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien.” 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7(a). Detainers are used in situations where it is impracticable or impossible for DHS to assume immediate custody over a person. Id. As authorized by the regulation, detainers ask that cooperating agencies detain an alien “not otherwise in custody” for no longer than 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7(d). The regulation also expressly authorizes several types of immigration officers to issue immigration detainers. 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7(b) (listing officers authorized to issue immigration detainers). These include, as relevant here, “supervisory and managerial personnel who are responsible for supervising the activities of” immigration enforcement agents, among others. 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7(b)(1)-(8). Thus, under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.7, the Pima County Jail was authorized to maintain custody of the Defendant for up to 48 hours beyond the time he would otherwise have been released to allow DHS an opportunity to assume custody.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
An ICE detainer signed by an ICE officer authorizing a hold for up to 48 hours on top of state charges was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gomez-Robles, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211348 (D. Ariz. … Continue reading